Slashdot Mirror


ACLU To Feds: Your 'Hacking Presents a Unique Threat To Individual Privacy' (arstechnica.com)

The American Civil Liberties Union, along with Privacy International, a similar organization based in the United Kingdom, have now sued 11 federal agencies, demanding records about how those agencies engage in what is often called "lawful hacking." From a report: The activist groups filed Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and nine others. None responded in a substantive way. "Law enforcement use of hacking presents a unique threat to individual privacy," the ACLU argues in its lawsuit, which was filed Friday in federal court in New York state. "Hacking can be used to obtain volumes of personal information about individuals that would never previously have been available to law enforcement."

21 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. ACLU on free speech: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *crickets*

    1. Re:ACLU on free speech: by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're still big advocates of free speech. As long as it's not hate speech or speech that hurts someone's feelings.

    2. Re:ACLU on free speech: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ACLU absolutely does support actual free speech, but unfortunately for nazi faggots, that doesn't include their illegal and unsupportable hate screech

      Bullcrap. The ACLU most certainly does defend hate speech, and they have specifically defended Nazis.

      They are not the hypocrites that you claim they are.

    3. Re:ACLU on free speech: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Informative

      As long as it's not hate speech or speech that hurts someone's feelings.

      Bullcrap. From their own website: The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.

      Next time take a few seconds to check your facts before posting ignorant garbage.

    4. Re:ACLU on free speech: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Freedom of Speech is like Freedom of the Press in that he who owns the transport owns the freedom. If the transport does not belong to you, then the freedom does not belong to you.

      Freedom of the Press belongs to he who owns the press.

      Similarly Freedom of Speech belongs to he who owns the "transport" for the speech. Freedom of Speech claimants very often do not own the thing which is transporting the speech nor do they have a interest enforceable at all (such as the government owns it on their behalf).

      That is, if you wish to have "Freedom of Speech" on "Facebook", then you better own "Facebook" for if you do not, then the owner is likely to just tell you to pump sand and go buy your own.

    5. Re:ACLU on free speech: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bill you just conflated "hate speech" = a crime the ACLU does not legally support - with - "unpopular speech" by conservative (bigots) on campuses

      No I didn't. Both "hate speech" and "unpopular speech" are constitutionally protected, and the ACLU supports your right to speak either.

      The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about "hate". What it does say is "no law" abridging speech.

      They are not the same thing

      Yes they are. Hate speech is only illegal if it is also unpopular. Nobody is going to arrest you for saying "I hate Nazis", because that is a popular viewpoint.

      Probably the most odious example of hate speech was the Nazi march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. The ACLU defended their right to march and speak.

    6. Re:ACLU on free speech: by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm curious. When was the last time the ACLU defended free speech by conservatives? (Not Nazis, they are not conservatives - I mean center conservatives, as in don't want to bake a cake guys)

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    7. Re:ACLU on free speech: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Hate speech is defined as incitement to violence, a crime.

      Nonsense. Hate and violence are two different things. So where is your "definition"?

      Merriam-Webster: Hate speech - speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.

      Wikipedia: Hate speech - speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

      Dictionary.com: Hate speech - Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

      None of these definitions includes a mention of violence.

      People have a right to hate, and a constitutional right to express that hatred. Any law that says otherwise should be vigorously opposed.

    8. Re:ACLU on free speech: by slashdice · · Score: 1

      Harvard is a private institution. Which receives Federal financial assistance. And is therefore subject to the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Title IX.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    9. Re:ACLU on free speech: by Jon+Howard · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean they "were previously not the hypocrites". Times have changed, and I don't believe you'll find an example of the ACLU coming to the defense of anyone using "hate speech" in 2018. Likely not 2017, for that matter.

    10. Re: ACLU on free speech: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL

      You halfwit. That's the POINT.

      You disagree with infowars and think it's trash.

      You STILL defend the right to talk shit.

      That's free speech.

      That's NOT the ACLU

    11. Re:ACLU on free speech: by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That was in the 70s, and even back then they lost a lot of members and support over it. Today's ACLU regrets it's former extreme free speech stance and today supports restrictions on how people can speak, following the general principle of "free speech for me but not for thee".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  2. Re:Privacy be Dammed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No doubt. Pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan RIGHT AFTER PUTIN SUGGESTED IT was kind of obvious also. Unfortunately for Trump, the special counsel isn't furloughed or delayed by the shutdown. They're working all winter lol.

  3. Worse: No Non-Partizan Use by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    In America, in the last 2 years, we have learned that there is no way information cannot be used in a non-partizan way.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  4. Go yell bomb threats in the airport Bill. Try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content." = A website Lorem-slogan, IS NOT their actual policy or history, and certainly not the truth of the Constitutional protections.

    You're conflating their website with the legal specifics. That's not going to prove anything. If you need to test this, go shout bomb threats in an airport and find out.

    No one will defend you on 1st Amendment grounds from the FAA fine and/or imprisonment, because your oversimple understanding does not actually apply like that.

  5. The ACLU Committed Suicide a Month Ago by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

    When someone stands accused of sexual assault in criminal court, does the ACLU believe in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard merely because that is what the Constitution requires, or because it is better to leave some guilty people unpunished than to punish many innocents? “The old-school ACLU knew there was no contradiction between defending due process and ‘supporting survivors,’” David French writes. “Indeed, it was through healthy processes that we not only determined whether a person had been victimized, but also prevented the accused from becoming a ‘survivor’ of a profound injustice.”

    Says the criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield:

    The ACLU cannot love constitutional rights only when it serves to further a cause on behalf of their favored marginalized group, then hate it when it doesn’t, and still be given credit as a voice for civil liberties Remember, due process “inappropriately favors the accused.”

    Those four words are the ACLU’s epitaph.

  6. In other words by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    As long as it's not hate speech or speech that hurts someone's feelings.

    In other words, speech that is not particularly controversial and thus never needed protection.

  7. hypocrisy by bmo · · Score: 1

    I read the summary of this article and read the previous summary and...

    The US and the rest of the "free world" (such as it is) is bitching and moaning about APT10, a so-called hacking collective. Whilst the "free world" goes on hacking sprees against their own citizens (five-eyes, etc).

    It's not about catching criminals (the ACLU is falling into the semantics trap). It's about "instant dossiers" on people who might upset "the system" - i.e., the incumbent powers that be. Everyone has skeletons, and without "second chances" (the US since its founding had been the land of second chances - ability to re-invent oneself, until recently, with this data collecting bullshit tied to Real ID), there is not a politician in the US that can effect change.

    The future is a mishmash of Big Brother, Little Brothers (private companies collecting data to sell you things, for example) Brave New World, and GATTACA, in the worst possible way. Because every time I think something has gotten as worse as it can get, it gets worser by orders of magnitude, so my ruminations here and in my head can't possibly imagine the tyrannical dystopia coming down the road.

    NUMBER: 1593
    AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706â"90)
    QUOTATION: âoeWell, Doctor, what have we gotâ"a Republic or a Monarchy?â

        âoeA Republic, if you can keep it.â
    ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLINâ"at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberationâ"in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Marylandâ(TM)s delegates to the Convention.

    https://www.bartleby.com/73/15...

    "This tribble is dead, Jim" -- Dr. McCoy

    --
    BMO

  8. Hacking without permission is always a problem by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Permission of the target that is. For one thing, all reasonable standards of evidence go out the window. That invites planting evidence. And since the feds are in no way morally superior to other people (if anything, they are significantly less moral), it will happen and in many cases the victim will not be able to mount an effective defense. The second problem is that people that need to fear being hacked in this way (and everybody not perfectly boring needs to) will self-censor. That is the death of civil society.

    Of course, authoritarians of all colors, and especially the religious fuckups, will welcome that. Individual thoughts? We cannot have that! These people may find out that all authoritarian legends are just smoke and mirrors! And where do you find most authoritarians? Right, in government service. Because that is what they crave: Universal order, enforced by as much violence as needed. No deviations. No disruptions. No progress. No individuality.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Hacking without permission is always a problem by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thats why the GCHQ never got in the legal system, never let on what they did in Ireland, with the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch.
      When nobody understands what is collected and how, then groups been watched look inwards for informats.

      All the US gov had to do was keep using parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and random "adware" and "malware".
      Make the user click a link, open an unexpected document from a "friends" email and click on something.
      Make a browser connect in an unexpected way due to media and peer content.
      Decades of users could have been collected on for free.
      Now people want to know all about federal malware.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Re:Privacy be Dammed... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Pulling out, what are you saying, the US should stay until Syria and Afghanistan are what totally knocked up, another series of baby terrorist organisation born to keep the forever war going. What the fuck are they doing in Syria in the first place, what problems have they ever solved in Afghanistan, the problem the US created in the first place and bragged about it. So destroy Afghanistan as a modern society and keep doing it there in after, why, what is the purpose, what problem is being solved. We all know what problems are being created and exacerbated but tell us what problems are being solved by continuing to fuck over Syria and Afghanistan and we have all heard how it props up war industrial complex profits, I mean they actually brag about it and call it a feature but yeah the majority of people don't and call it seriously insane psychopathic shit to kill people for profit.

    So what Chrissie presents will the US government and the US people be delivering to Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Libyans, Yemenis, Somalians, Pakistani's, Chrissie bombs, feel good bombs, health care bombs (euthanasia as freedom from the suffering caused by the sheer unadulterated greed of the US).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen